Same-sex marriage is stealing rights from God

[Foxaèr]

Is same-sex marriage really a "right"? If so, by what standard is it a right? Who said and by what authority?

A right is something that a person has even if the majority of people disagree with it. In other words, rights are not based on human opinion, but on an unchangeable authoritative standard beyond human opinion. That's why human rights cannot exist unless God exists. Without God everything is simply a matter of personal preference.

Some say, "Our laws are the basis for rights!" No they are not. Human laws can only recognize God-given rights-they are not their ultimate justification. To claim otherwise would be to admit that your "rights" would vanish if a majority of humans or a dictator changed the law. No advocate of same sex marriage would agree with that. In fact, those advocates are arguing that in states where the majority is against same-sex marriage, they still have a right to it. They are correct if same sex marriage is actually a right. But since when does God consider same sex marriage a right?

More of the article:

---

Forget about the "separation of church and state" objection. It doesn't apply here. We're not talking about establishing a religion through our laws, but we are talking about protecting moral rights through our laws (which is what good laws are supposed to do). Our founders didn't demand adherence to any particular religious denomination, but they recognized our moral rights come from the Creator and founded the country on "Nature's Law" consistent with Christianity. Nature's Law (which Jefferson said is "self-evident") says that the natural design of the human body and the natural procreative abilities of the man and the woman serve to perpetuate and stabilize society, which same sex behavior cannot achieve. Therefore, there is a right to "natural" marriage, but no right to same sex marriage. That's not bigotry, that's biology.

Homosexual activists say we're wrong. But we can't be "wrong" unless there is a real standard of "Right" from which we deviate. So we should ask same sex marriage advocates, "What's your standard? Who said same sex marriage is a 'right'?" You and your friends? That's not a right. That's an opinion. You're calling it a right, but you're stealing the grounding of rights from God and then misapplying it to your own personal preferences. There is no grounding in the God of Nature's Law for same sex marriage.

Of course, without God there is no right to natural marriage either! In other words, no matter what side of the political aisle you're on-no matter how passionate you believe in certain causes or rights-without God they aren't really rights at all. Human rights amount to no more than your subjective preferences. So liberals can believe in and fight for same-sex marriage, but they can't justify it as truly being a right without reference to the Creator. If they do reference the Creator, then they have the rationally dubious task of arguing that God affirms same-sex marriage.

---

"But what about equality?" they say. Absent God, they have no grounding for "equality" either. What objective standard justifies "equality" or anything else as a right if there is no God?

More of the article:

---

While homosexual activists are correct that equal treatment under the law is a right, they steal that right from God and then misapply it. Instead of applying equal treatment to people, they misapply "equality" to behaviors. They are correct that all people should be treated equally, but incorrect to imply that all behaviors should be treated equally. It would be foolish to treat all behaviors equally. In fact, the very reason laws exist at all is because all behaviors are not equal and must be treated differently for the benefit of individuals and society.

Since same sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, they should be treated differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn't. Promoting one behavior does not deny rights to people who don't engage in that behavior.

In fact, what is often missed in this debate is that all people-whether they have homosexual or heterosexual desires-are equal and already have equal rights under the law. Every human being has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexual activists want the additional right to marry someone of the same sex, but even they limit the definition of marriage. Most homosexual activists want to limit the definition of marriage in such a way so groups cannot marry. Why are they so "bigoted" to rule out groups and other arrangements they disapprove of? The same logic that seeks to justify same sex marriage-"I should be able to marry whomever I love"-can be used to justify any preferred arrangement.

---

The truth is, everyone puts limits on marriage. If marriage had no limits it wouldn't mean anything. But unlike liberals, conservatives have more than a mere preference for their limits. The long-held view that marriage is limited to one man and one woman is rooted in Nature's Law in accord with the facts of nature. Again, that's not bigotry-that's biology.

When we ignore biology and steal rights from God, we inflict very negative long-term consequences on society, and especially on children. That's what we'll cover in tomorrow's column.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/same-s...od-119560/

Oh, the ignorance!

[Crossless2.0]

Stealing rights from God . . . yeah, I keep forgetting how easy it is to completely fuck up an almighty being's plans.

[ThePinsir]

I've been here for a good little while now, and I've read some dumb shit. But this takes the cake. I just...I can't possibly face palm hard enough. I'm actually kind of angry at how dumb this is. Like, i actually feel bad now. Thanks a lot, OP.

[Rev. Rye]

So, if same-sex marriage is wrong mainly because it can't result in biological offspring, it should follow that the following couples have no right to be married.

[*] A man whose wife lost the ability to bear children.
[*] A woman and a man who has had a vasectomy.
[*] Any man and woman who choose to not have kids.
[*] Any elderly couple, since women tend to go through menopause sometime between the ages of 45 and 55. Should marriages be dissolved as soon as the woman go through menopause?

Tellingly, I doubt this columnist will even mention any of these scenarios, even though, by the very same logic he uses, they have as little right to marriage as gay people.

[Jaysyn]

That article would be slightly less stupid if it wasn't for the fact that "marriage" is much much older than Christianity. These cross-gobbling morons literally think they invented the institution.

Also, the article author is getting excoriated in the comments. Not what I expected to see at the bottom of that web-rag.

[Losty]

Only people can have rights. Even 'animal rights' are actually about human responsibility. So legally god cannot have any rights.

[Minimalist]

There is almost no power on earth that can stop a full-of-shit jesus freak from running his fucking mouth.

[DarkHorse]

Fucking moron.

[Foxaèr]

The continuation of this dumb three-part series:

What reasons, other than religious reasons, might someone want to keep marriage defined as only the union of one man and one woman? There are actually thousands of reasons. They are born each day. Marriage must be protected to protect children.

How does that follow? How will children be affected by broadening the definition of marriage? To discover the actual truth about this complicated issue of same-sex marriage, it's important to be correct rather than politically correct.

Let's start by identifying the main reason we have marriage laws in the first place. The main reason the government is involved in marriage is not to recognize that two people love one another or have a romantic affinity for one another. We don't have marriage laws to recognize the fact that you get a tingle when Barbara wears that blouse. Why should the state care about just romantic feelings?

The real reason governments have an interest in promoting natural marriage because only natural marriage perpetuates and stabilizes society. Strong marriage laws encourage men and women to procreate and then stay together to mother and father their children. That benefits children and all of society because children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations.

Why is this so? Because men and women are different. Mothering and fathering are different. A mother brings unique benefits to her child that a father cannot provide and vice versa. Same sex couples always deny children in their care either a mother or a father. Only natural marriage can provide and protect the parenting unit that every child deserves-a mother and a father. That's why limiting marriage to a man and a woman is not bigotry-it's biology. It's based in the biological facts of nature and the needs of children.

Seems too uncannily similar to Heywood's ill logic.

Read more:

---

Homosexual activists inadvertently admit this in arguing for same-sex marriage. While they assert that men and women are the same-that there's no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships so those relationships should be treated equally-their entire case denies that point. If men and women were really the same, the activists would simply marry someone of the opposite sex-which according to them is the same as someone of the same sex-and be done with it. The very reason they are demanding same-sex marriage is precisely because they know men and women are drastically different.

Since same sex and natural marriage are different behaviors that result in different outcomes, they should not be treated equally. The law must treat people equally (which it already does) but not their behaviors. When the law treats these different behaviors equally the cultural understanding of marriage changes and children get hurt.

The law is a great teacher. It shapes opinions and behaviors for generations to come. Wherever same sex marriage becomes law, the public doesn't come to see two types of marriage-natural and same sex. It comes to understand that marriage is genderless. In other words, by dropping the gender requirement, the law helps teach society that marriage is a genderless institution merely about the romantic desires of adults and nothing about the needs of children. Well, if marriage isn't about the needs of children, then what institution is about children? Do we really think we can divorce children from marriage and avoid negative consequences?

We can't. In fact, we've been experiencing negative consequences since no-fault divorce laws passed in the 1970s. Those laws make dissolving a family too easy and should be repealed. They also help teach people that marriage is only about the desires of adults, not the needs of children. If marriage is all about my happiness and not the needs of children, then I should get divorced if I'm not "happy." The law is teaching me that if the tingle is gone I should move on. No wonder families break up at alarming rates, and children are damaged in the process. Making marriage genderless through same sex marriage will further hurt children by annihilating their connection to marriage completely.

Making marriage genderless also impacts what we teach our children. In Massachusetts, for example, parents now have no right to even know when their kids as young as kindergarten are being taught about homosexuality, much less opt out of it. Why are we indoctrinating five year olds with any information about sex, especially homosexuality? And why is California now mandating that homosexuals must be identified in public school curriculum and only depicted in positive ways? Nothing negative can be said even if it's true! That's not education; that's propaganda. Our education system is politicized and propagandized and our children are the victims.

Some states even dictate how parents educate and counsel their children outside the schoolroom. California, along with New Jersey, now make you a criminal for counseling your own child out of unwanted homosexual desires. Do you realize the totalitarian nature of this? The state has given itself the obligation to indoctrinate your children into homosexuality and taken away your parental right to counsel them out of it. Are you the parent of your own child or is the state? Is this still America?

---

If all of these observations make you mad, don't blame me-I didn't make up the facts of nature. I didn't make up the fact that men were made for women and that babies only come from their unions. I didn't make up the fact that mothers and fathers are different and bring unique parenting skills and benefits to their children. I didn't make up the universe in such a way that children tend to turn out better when raised by a biological mom and dad. I didn't make up the fact that we all have desires we ought not act on, regardless if we are born with those desires or acquire them in life. These aren't "my" truths or my morality. They are self-evident truths. They are not hard to know-just sometimes hard to accept.

It can be summed up this way: Conservatives try to adjust their behavior to fit the facts of nature. Liberals try to adjust the facts of nature to fit their behavior. No matter how well intended, the latter is an impossible approach that often leads to tragic results.

If we truly love and care for people, we won't abandon self-evident truths and celebrate destructive behavior. When we do, not only do children get hurt, so do many others as we'll see in tomorrow's column.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/natura...gy-119640/

[One Above All]

You can STEAL from YHWH? Holy shit! Time to gather my iron chariot army, take its powers, and become a better god.